Another day where my head slowly spins...

In order to keep everyone as informed (and depressed) as possible, I am going to post quite a bit more for a while.  Pointless I assure you.

So todays irritant involves the collective activities of google (you know them?) as well as the Connecticut AG in a change of attitude about some activities involving privacy and data collection.

A moment about google - I acknowledge (and even embrace) the irony of using a "free" public blog hosted under google services while I call them names.  I know (as do you) that if you are not purchasing a product from a company that in fact you are the product.  And yes, Soylant Green is made of people.

A moment about what google did.  Short version - in order to have a better idea about who is exactly where when they use the google location services.  As part of the street view program (where they drive around and take pictures of streets, houses and whatnot) they hoovered up wireless data from unsecured wireless installations instead of just the id of the transmitter.  After denying that they did this (a profoundly dicky thing), they acknowledged the act and threw the programmers under the bus since that it what management does.

So who really gives a shit?

Former Attorney General Richard Blumenthal last December in response to Google's 'accidental' collection of payload data from WiFi networks had the following to say:

 “Verifying Google’s data snare is crucial to assessing a penalty and assuring no repeat. Consumers and businesses expect and deserve a full explanation, as well as measures shielding them from future spying. We will scrupulously safeguard the confidentiality of information we review.

“We will fight to compel Google to come clean–granting my office access to improperly collected materials and protecting confidentiality, as the company has done in Canada and elsewhere.”

I like this for many reasons including the simple fact that it is the right thing to do.

Enter new Attorney General George Jepsen, who is now saying:

Jepsen said Friday that his office will enter into settlement negotiations with the company without reviewing the pilfered data, which Google has steadfastly refused to share with it. Under the terms of the deal between the two, Connecticut will drop the civil investigative demand it was using to force Google to produce the data at issue here, and Google will stipulate to collecting and storing it. It will also stipulate that the data collected included confidential and private information like “partial or complete e-mail communications.”

Note that google does not have to get rid of the data that it has.

So why, good readers am I so pissed off?  We are living after all in a Business Friendly universe now.  There is a second press release which says in part:

For Immediate Release FRIDAY JAN. 28, 2011 

HARTFORD – In recognition of Data Privacy Day, Attorney General George Jepsen Friday advised Connecticut residents to protect their personal and communications data by encrypting their own wireless Internet networks. 

The recommendation stemmed from Connecticut’s investigation into Google Inc.’s collection of payload data being transmitted over unsecured business and consumer networks. That investigation led to a stipulation with Google that will avoid the need to go to court as settlement negotiations continue. 

“Google’s collection of payload data demonstrates that others may be watching your Internet activity without your knowledge,” Jepsen said. “Consumers should know that the wireless routers they purchase from the store are not automatically encrypted, and they need to activate the encryption feature to ensure better protection,” Jepsen said.

So it is the users fault. So think of it like this.  Google goes around the neighborhood and tries all the doors.  If it is unlocked they write down your address, take a picture of your house and walk in and copy any sort of mail or paperwork that happens to be sitting around by the door.  Then they leave.  They are asked about it, and deny it.  A month later they say that they were actually doing this and sorry, we were only planning on trying the doors and writing down the addresses!  The AG asks to see what sort of personal correspondence was copied and is told to go fuck himself.  Later a new AG says that the correspondence is more or less irrelevant and that people need to have done a better job of locking their doors and keeping their bills in order.

This is why I am slowly going mad.

Another day where my head slowly spins...

In order to keep everyone as informed (and depressed) as possible, I am going to post quite a bit more for a while.  Pointless I assure you.

So todays irritant involves the collective activities of google (you know them?) as well as the Connecticut AG in a change of attitude about the activities.

A moment about google - I acknowledge (and even embrace) the irony of using a "free" public blog hosted under google services while I call them names.  I know (as do you) that if you are not purchasing a product from a company that in fact you are the product.  And yes, Soylant Green is made of people.

A moment about the offense (since there seems to be no real suggestion that they did not in fact do this I remove the usual 'alleged' qualifier).  Short version - in order to have a better idea about who is exactly where when they use the google location services.  As part of the street view program (where they drive around and take pictures of streets, houses and whatnot) they hoovered up wireless data from unsecured wireless installations instead of just the id of the transmitter.  After denying that they did this (a profoundly dicky thing), they acknowledged the act and threw the programmers under the bus since that it what management does.

So who really gives a shit?

Former Attorney General Richard Blumenthal last December in response to Google's 'accidental' collection of payload data from WiFi networks had the following to say:

 “Verifying Google’s data snare is crucial to assessing a penalty and assuring no repeat. Consumers and businesses expect and deserve a full explanation, as well as measures shielding them from future spying. We will scrupulously safeguard the confidentiality of information we review.

“We will fight to compel Google to come clean–granting my office access to improperly collected materials and protecting confidentiality, as the company has done in Canada and elsewhere.”

I like this for many reasons including the simple fact that it is the right thing to do.

Enter new Attorney General George Jepsen, who is now saying:

Jepsen said Friday that his office will enter into settlement negotiations with the company without reviewing the pilfered data, which Google has steadfastly refused to share with it. Under the terms of the deal between the two, Connecticut will drop the civil investigative demand it was using to force Google to produce the data at issue here, and Google will stipulate to collecting and storing it. It will also stipulate that the data collected included confidential and private information like “partial or complete e-mail communications.”

Note that google does not have to get rid of the data that it has.

So why, good readers am I so pissed off?  We are living after all in a Business Friendly universe now.  There is a second press release which says in part:

For Immediate Release FRIDAY JAN. 28, 2011 

HARTFORD – In recognition of Data Privacy Day, Attorney General George Jepsen Friday advised Connecticut residents to protect their personal and communications data by encrypting their own wireless Internet networks. 

The recommendation stemmed from Connecticut’s investigation into Google Inc.’s collection of payload data being transmitted over unsecured business and consumer networks. That investigation led to a stipulation with Google that will avoid the need to go to court as settlement negotiations continue. 

“Google’s collection of payload data demonstrates that others may be watching your Internet activity without your knowledge,” Jepsen said. “Consumers should know that the wireless routers they purchase from the store are not automatically encrypted, and they need to activate the encryption feature to ensure better protection,” Jepsen said.

So it is the users fault. So think of it like this.  Google goes around the neighborhood and tries all the doors.  If it is unlocked they write down your address, take a picture of your house and walk in and copy any sort of mail or paperwork that happens to be sitting around by the door.  Then they leave.  They are asked about it, and deny it.  A month later they say that they were actually doing this and sorry, we were only planning on trying the doors and writing down the addresses!  The AG asks to see what sort of personal correspondence was copied and is told to go fuck himself.  Later a new AG says that the correspondence is more or less irrelevant and that people need to have done a better job of locking their doors and keeping their bills in order.

This is why I am slowly going mad.

The Grey

It has been approximately a year since I felt like there was time to sit and write out my frustrations to the world.  Well, there is even less time than before, but I am tired and need to get a few things off my chest.

I am sitting in my office overlooking a city composed from this perspective completely of muted grey, browns and white.  A single red pipe sticking up from the new construction across the way composes the only primary color in view.  The two things, the Grey and the Tired, are probably not unrelated and in part seem to be kept in check by the miracle of Modern Pharmaceuticals for which I am happy.

In reading the interwebs the other day I run across this little gem -

DOJ seeks mandatory data retention requirement for ISPs ; Joins police chief organization in calling for law to bolster enforcement efforts to fight child porn, other online crime

John Douglas, chief of police in Overland Park, Kansas and a representative of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, echoed similar concerns (PDF).  "Clearly, preserving digital evidence is crucial in any modern-day criminal investigation," Douglas said in his prepared testimony for the House subcommittee. On occasion, law enforcement has been able to use existing legal processes to get ISPs to preserve data in connection with specific investigations, he said.

However, because of widely varying data retention policies, sometimes law enforcement requests for protecting data are made too late. "There are cases where we are not able to work quickly enough -- mostly because a 'lead' is discovered after the logs have expired or we are unaware of the specific service provider's protocols concerning data retention time periods," Douglas said.

What is being asked for is that ISP's retain data about online activity for a period of two years.  The form of the data that is being asked for has not been fully described but any form of this retention represents a significant erosion of the notion of privacy.  In the more full bodied version, providers would be required to keep full session information (think of this in terms of all your "web traffic").  Two years is a long time.

Now this strikes me as a little stinky.  There is almost no discussion of privacy concerns except perhaps:

A discussion about data retention is also not about whether the government should have the ability to obtain retained data. Retained data is held by the provider, not the government. Federal law controls when providers can disclose information related to communications, and it requires investigators to obtain legal process, such as a subpoena or court order and in some cases with a search warrant, in order to compel providers to disclose it.

Any way, the same DOJ jokers who currently break the law and abuse the system will just get another tiny speed bump put in place to see whatever you have been doing on line for the past couple of years.

This is by no means a suggestion that it will be used by unethical folks for illegal actions, but really people give me a fucking break.

In a larger perspective we can look back on the NSA coercing telecommunication companies into allowing them to engage in warentless surveillance.    I have gone on and one about this in the past so, this will be short and to the point.  From one of my favorite sites:

Senator Barack Obama, desperate for some traction against Hillary Clinton in the fight for the Democratic nomination for president announced (via) he would support a filibuster if it contained retroactive immunity, but in the end he supported it. The phone companies were off the hook (har) and no one had to find out anything.

Why dredge up this ancient history? Because it sent the message to the business community that if the government comes calling it is best to go along. There is no downside to cooperating, apart perhaps from some anxiety while the pretty theater in the capitol plays out. There is a definite downside to pushing back, though.

This scenario appears to be repeating, this time with Internet companies. Twitter just received a subpoena for user data along with a gag order preventing it from telling the targets. To its enormous credit, it fought back, challenging and quashing the gag order. WikiLeaks - the target of the investigation - raised the entirely reasonable question of whether, say, Facebook and Google have received similar orders. What assurance can anyone have that their data is being protected from US government surveillance?

Honestly compared to this, the NSA buildout in various telcos is totally kids stuff.

Just another day in The Grey.

Compelling Necessity

I have been digesting this for a few days now.  Since no amount of "digestion" seems to help, I will just get it off my chest in the usual way.

On 8,  Sept the 9th Circuit ruled that the state secrets doctrine bars a court action for torture.  That means that you (yes you, citizen!) can be dragged away in secret, held for years without charges, tortured etc etc and if the government wants to call their own law breaking a secret (meaning that there are "state secrets" involved) there is not fuck all that you can do.  Full stop.

This case requires us to address the difficult balance the state secrets doctrine strikes between fundamental principles of our liberty, including justice, transparency, accountability and national security. Although as judges we strive to honor all of these principles, there are times when exceptional circumstances create an irreconcilable conflict between them. On those rare occasions, we are bound to follow the Supreme Court’s admonition that “even the most compelling necessity cannot overcome the claim of privilege if the court is ultimately satisfied that [state] secrets are at stake.” United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 11 (1953). After much deliberation, we reluctantly conclude this is such a case, and the plaintiffs’ action must be dismissed. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

From the Jeppesen Dataplan suit.

This is a big deal in that the same branch of the government that is breaking all these international laws, is the same one that defines what should be kept secret in the name of national security.  You do the math.

You can not tell me that the current administration is somehow innocent of this as well - they have pushed for a growth of executive privilege and pledged to ignore the self admitted crimes against humanity from the previous administration.

The ACLU’s Ben Wizner on the decision:

This is a sad day not only for the torture victims whose attempt to seek justice has been extinguished, but for all Americans who care about the rule of law and our nation’s reputation in the world. To date, not a single victim of the Bush administration’s torture program has had his day in court. If today’s decision is allowed to stand, the United States will have closed its courtroom doors to torture victims while providing complete immunity to their torturers. The torture architects and their enablers may have escaped the judgment of this court, but they will not escape the judgment of history.

I need a fucking drink.

The tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.

In reading (whatever the hell I manage to read in my spare time), ran across this.  More to say about it, but want to get it down now.

Korematsu was born on our soil, of parents born in Japan. The Constitution makes him a citizen of the United States by nativity, and a citizen of California by residence. No claim is made that he is not loyal to this country. There is no suggestion that, apart from the matter involved here, he is not law-abiding and well disposed. Korematsu, however, has been convicted of an act not commonly a crime. It consists merely of being present in the state whereof he is a citizen, near the place where he was born, and where all his life he has lived.

Even more unusual is the series of military orders which made this conduct a crime. They forbid such a one to remain, and they also forbid him to leave. They were so drawn that the only way Korematsu could avoid violation was to give himself up to the military authority. This meant submission to custody, examination, and transportation out of the territory, to be followed by indeterminate confinement in detention camps. . . .

A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. Even during that period, a succeeding commander may revoke it all. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes. All who observe the work of courts are familiar with what Judge Cardozo described as “the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.” * A military commander may overstep the bounds of constitutionality, and it is an incident. But if we review and approve, that passing incident becomes the doctrine of the Constitution. There it has a generative power of its own, and all that it creates will be in its own image. Nothing better illustrates this danger than does the Court’s opinion in this case.

Justice Jackson, wrote this in his dissent from Korematsu v US (starting on page 322 US 243).

Impunity

So I have been on hiatus for the past six months or so, trying to catch up on work and home and all the other things that people do besides complain to the great indifferent internets.

I have read many things in that time which have caused my blood to boil, yet one small comment from some ignorant fuckwit has pushed me over the edge.  As part of my non-pseudo-anonymous life I keep up with a number of computer security related things which is all good and fun.  Just a few days ago there was some shenanigans about some software put out by some big company - the details are really not all that important.  Looking over the comments I see:

It appears this flaw was irresponsibly disclosed, that is, the vendor was not consulted for producing a hotfix before dumping the details on the web. I think sw vendors should refuse to fix irresponsibly disclosed bugs or exploits and direct users to do whatever they want to the hackers in retaliation. Maybe corporates should even have a policy of hunting down vxers and hackers, who publish zero days. I can't see why a big company, richer than many small countries, shouldn't have the authority to dispose of their enemies with impunity, in the same way any small country can, if they have a secret service.

Huh?

Anybody here see why big companies (or governments!) should not be able to dispose of their enemies with impunity?  Even if this is a contemporary Modest Proposal, I have had the misfortune of people share this very same notion after a drink or two.

Not sure exactly why this set me off, but with a little luck I might get a few things written in spite of myself.

FIN|ACK

Nuke Oklahoma, or the sancity of baby jebus

Not much time, but this is such vile bullshit.

Tuesday the Oklahoma legislature voted on two anti-abortion measures.  The first mandates that the women undergoing the procedure have to watch a detailed ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus.  The second protects doctors from being sued if they withhold  information about birth defects when the fetus is in the womb.

There are no exceptions for cases or rape or incest.

The Democratic governor attempted to veto the two measures based on the rape/incest problem, the unconstitutional intrusion into a woman's privacy and the idea that: "It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient."

Both houses voted to override the vetos.

I was profoundly pissed off before I got to the last paragraph of the article.  I make the quote the color of chickenshit, because that is what it is:

“The goal of this legislation is just to make a statement for the sanctity of human life,” State Senator Todd Lamb, the majority floor leader, said in an interview after the vote. “Maybe someday these babies will grow up to be police officers and arrest bad people, or will find a cure for cancer.”

I would like to know when this becomes a civil and human rights issue for women in that they are defacto being denied medical care because it violates the delicate religious notions of a bunch of hypocritical douches.